Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./CLOSING DATE/if not in response to a program announcement/solicitation enter NSF 02-2 FOR NSF USE ONLY NSF 02-010 01/24/02 NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNIT(S) (Indicate the most specific unit known, i.e. program, division, etc.) BCS - BE: DYN COUPLED NATURAL-HUMAN 0216560 DATE RECEIVED NUMBER OF COPIES DIVISION ASSIGNED FUND CODE DUNS# (Data Universal Numbering System) FILE LOCATION 943360412 EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN) A RENEWAL AGENCY? YES NO IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S) AN ACCOMPLISHMENT-BASED RENEWAL 860196696 NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE Arizona State University Arizona State University Box 3503 AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN) Tempe, AZ. 85287 0010819000 NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE ADDRESS OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN) IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply) (See GPG II.C For Definitions) FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION SMALL BUSINESS MINORITY BUSINESS WOMAN-OWNED BUSINESS TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Agrarian Landscapes in Transition: A Cross-Scale Approach REQUESTED AMOUNT PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS) REQUESTED STARTING DATE SHOW RELATED PREPROPOSAL NO., IF APPLICABLE $ 1,999,952 48months 01/01/03 CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) IF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.A) HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.C.11) DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C) Exemption Subsection or IRB App. Date PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.B, II.C.6) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.9) (GPG II.C.9) SMALL GRANT FOR EXPLOR. RESEARCH (SGER) (GPG II.C.11) VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.C.11) IACUC App. Date HIGH RESOLUTION GRAPHICS/OTHER GRAPHICS WHERE EXACT COLOR REPRESENTATION IS REQUIRED FOR PROPER INTERPRETATION (GPG I.E.1) PI/PD DEPARTMENT PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS Department of Anthropology PI/PD FAX NUMBER Tempe, AZ 852873211 480-965-8087 United States NAMES (TYPED) High Degree Yr of Degree Telephone Number Electronic Mail Address PI/PD NAME Charles L Redman PhD 1971 480-965-2975 [email protected] CO-PI/PD David R Foster PhD 1983 978-724-3302 [email protected] CO-PI/PD Myron P Gutmann PhD 1976 734-998-9911 [email protected] CO-PI/PD Peter M Kareiva Ph.D. 1981 206-685-6893 [email protected] CO-PI/PD Ann P Kinzig PhD 1994 480-965-6838 [email protected] Page 1 of 2 Electronic Signature AGRARIAN LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION: A CROSS-SCALE APPROACH PARTICIPANTS Central Arizona–Phoenix (CAP) LTER *Charles Redman (PI/PD) Will Stefanov *Ann Kinzig (Co-PI) John Briggs Peter McCartney Laura Musacchio Nancy Grimm Tony Brazel Monica Elser Jianguo Wu * = Executive Committee Charlene Saltz Harvard Forest (HFR) LTER *David Foster (Co-PI) Billie Turner David Kittredge Elizabeth Chilton John O’Keefe Glenn Motzkin University of Michigan/Shortgrass Steppe (SGS) LTER *Myron Gutmann (Co-PI) Ken Sylvester William Parton Glenn Deane The Nature Conservancy Peter Kareiva (Co-PI) Rebecca Shaw Coweeta LTER *Ted Gragson (Executive Committee) Paul Bolstad Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) LTER *Alan Rudy (Executive Committee) Craig Harris Konza Prairie (KNZ) LTER *Gerad Middendorf (Executive Committee) Leonard Bloomquist John Blair Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) LTER Morgan Grove International Collaborators Sander van der Leeuw (Archaeomedes Project, France) Pamela Matson, Stanford (Yaqui Valley, Mexico Regional Sustainability Study) AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION: A CROSS-SCALE APPROACH Abstract This interdisciplinary project will trace the effects of the introduction, spread, and abandonment of agriculture at six U.S. long-term ecological research (LTER) sites, with cross comparisons in Mexico and France. Agrarian transformations represent the most pervasive alteration of the Earth’s terrestrial environment during the past 10,000 years. Many current conceptualizations of these transformations, however, assume a simple linear model—change is driven by present-day economic, demographic, and technological conditions. This project incorporates a more integrated and long-term cycle: of land-use change affecting landscapes, of altered landscapes affecting ecological processes, and of both influencing the ways in which humans monitor and respond to their surroundings, engendering further cycles of change. The central objective of this research is to identify and quantify the ways in which these integrated cycles differ across cultures, across biogeographic regions, and across time. A suite of quantitative and narrative analyses will be used to identify the prime determinants of long-term dynamics, present-day patterns, and reservoirs of ecological and social resilience in these systems. Analytical approaches will include structural-equation modeling, analysis of spatial and causal effects, and cross-site comparisons of case studies. As a practical test of the project’s results, approaches and insights will be examined in the context of conservation planning at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) that includes an emphasis on eco-regional planning and scenario building. This investigation will contribute to both science and society in six ways. First, it will demonstrate the importance of social-science information and approaches in ecosystem investigations, expanding the results of the LTER network and breaching the divide between social and natural science. The data protocols developed will also benefit other communities of social and natural scientists through the involvement of ICPSR, the main national repository of social science data. Second, this project will help to develop general theories on how socio-ecological legacies, as well as lags in the recognition of and response to change, vary across space and time. Third, through detailed case histories and quantitative analyses, the project expects to provide convincing evidence that humans act not only to disturb ecosystems, but also monitor ecosystem values and respond to maintain stability and minimize crises. Fourth, project results will provide information of direct use to policy makers, TNC, and land managers by using an approach that explicitly relates socio-ecological processes to varying levels of political organization. Fifth, the cross-scale data collection and analyses are expected to demonstrate that some patterns of human-ecological interactions are surprisingly long term, vary across space and time, and are non-linear. The greatest contribution will be through education at a variety of levels; this project will train new interdisciplinary scientists at all levels of the educational spectrum, inform public officials, and contribute to more effective land management practices. I. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The patterns humans impose on the Earth through purposeful and inadvertent land-use change are fundamental determinants of local, regional, and global ecological processes that ultimately in- fluence the sustainability of both biological and cultural landscapes, and thus human quality of life. These landscapes result from integrated socioeconomic and ecological dynamics playing out across potentially vast scales of space, time, and organizational complexity (Turner et al. 1990; Vitousek et al. 1997; Levin 1999). Ecological systems have intrinsic temporal rhythms, driven by such things as generation time, age of reproduction, and disturbance frequencies. They also exhibit patterns on characteristic spatial scales, driven by such things as dispersal distance, topography, and interaction lengths. But these ecological systems also bear the signature of human institutions that act—either directly or indirectly—to alter the dominant spatial and temporal modes (e.g., suppressing fire fre- quencies or homogenizing landscapes) or to introduce new ones (e.g., 5-year planning cycles, rectan- gular state boundaries) (Pyne 1997; Carpenter & Gunderson 2001; Scheffer et al. 2001; Turner et al. 2002). At the same time, human institutions are shaped and influenced by the environmental rhythms and ecological arrangements of the biogeographic region in which they emerged (Cronon 1983; Dia- mond 1997; Dove & Kammen 1997; Ostrom et al. 1997; Berkes & Folke 1998). This reciprocal “im- printing” of scales means that scientists and managers cannot effectively parse landscapes into “natu- ral” and “human” components, but instead must study them as an integrated whole (NRC 1999; Kin- zig et al. 2000; Michener et al. 2001). Our central objective is to understand what happens when humans impose their spatial and temporal signatures on ecological regimes and must then respond to the systems they have helped create, further altering the dynamics of the coupled system and the potential for ecological and social resilience. We propose to study this question within the context of agrarian transformations, both current and historical, because of their ubiquity and because of the tight coupling of human and environ- mental dynamics that are an inherent feature of agrarian landscapes (Geertz 1963). The introduction, spread, and abandonment of agriculture represents the most pervasive alteration of the Earth’s envi- ronment during the past 10,000 years, affecting 2/3 of the Earth’s